This criminal appeal challenged an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, finding the prosecution failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the appellant failed to prove his case regarding the loan amount.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; acquittal maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.A.(MD).No.127 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.A.(MD).No.127 of 2014
K.Prabakaran ... Appellant/Complainant Vs.
R.Alagesan ... Respondent/Accused
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C to call for the records pertaining to the Judgment in S.T.C.No.99 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thanjavur, dated 07.03.2014 and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
CRL.A.(MD).No.127 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred as against the order of acquittal passed in S.T.C.No.99 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thanjavur, dated 07.03.2014, thereby dismissing the complaint and acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2/6
CRL.A.(MD).No.127 of 2014
4.On the side of the appellant, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 and on the side of the respondent, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondent not guilty and acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal.
6.The appellant raised the ground that the respondent never disputed the signature found in the cheque and also the issuance of the cheque. Therefore, the appellant had discharged his initial burden as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent also failed to rebut the presumption by probable defence. The respondent also failed to produce any material in order to substantiate his contention. The mere non-receipt of the security deposit at the time of borrowal of loan would not be the reason for disbelieving the case of the appellant. Without considering those aspects, the trial Court mechanically acquitted the respondent.
3/6
CRL.A.(MD).No.127 of 2014
7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
8.On perusal of the records revealed that the appellant was examined as P.W.1. He deposed that he had acquainted with the respondent by meeting him at his brother's shop in Chennai. Except one meeting, that too in the shop owned by his brother, he had no acquaintance with the respondent. While it was being so, the appellant had lent a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the respondent for his urgent needs, that too without any document such as pro-notes and any other title document. In his cross-examination, he failed to substantiate his income to lend such a huge amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Except the cheque, the appellant did not produce any document to show that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Further, no one witnessed the borrowal of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Further, he had already filed another complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against one Saravanan, who also hails from Chennai. Therefore, the appellant lodged the complaint on behalf of his brother's debtor, who resides in Chennai. The alleged cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt in favour of the appellant herein. Hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent.
CRL.A.(MD).No.127 of 2014
Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below and the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
26.04.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes ps
To
The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court, Thanjavur.
CRL.A.(MD).No.127 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
CRL.A.(MD).No.127 of 2014
26.04.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the trial court acquitting the accused for failure to prove the legally enforceable debt constitutes an error warranting interference.
Whether the appellants failure to produce documents or witnesses substantiating the loan amount requires setting aside the acquittal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K.Prabakaran
R.Alagesan
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
